Chemistry Eduction a eachRser and Practice

This is an Accepted Manuscript, which has been through the Royal Society of Chemistry peer review process and has been accepted for publication.

Accepted Manuscripts are published online shortly after acceptance, before technical editing, formatting and proof reading. Using this free service, authors can make their results available to the community, in citable form, before we publish the edited article. We will replace this Accepted Manuscript with the edited and formatted Advance Article as soon as it is available.

You can find more information about Accepted Manuscripts in the Information for Authors.

Please note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the text and/or graphics, which may alter content. The journal’s standard Terms & Conditions and the Ethical guidelines still apply. In no event shall the Royal Society of Chemistry be held responsible for any errors or omissions in this Accepted Manuscript or any consequences arising from the use of any information it contains.

Accepted Manuscript

Chemistry Education Researchand Practice

www.rsc.org/cerp

http://www.rsc.org/Publishing/Journals/guidelines/AuthorGuidelines/JournalPolicy/accepted_manuscripts.asp

http://www.rsc.org/help/termsconditions.asp

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/guidelines/

Journal Name RSCPublishing

ARTICLE

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013 J. Name., 2013, 00, 1-3 | 1

Cite this: DOI: 10.1039/x0xx00000x

Received 00th January 2012,

Accepted 00th January 2012

DOI: 10.1039/x0xx00000x

www.rsc.org/

The flipped classroom for teaching organic chemistry

in small classes: is it effective?

Jessica M. Fautcha

The flipped classroom is a pedagogical approach that moves course content from the classroom

to homework, and uses class time for engaging activities and instructor-guided problem solving.

The course content in a sophomore level Organic Chemistry I course was assigned as homework

using video lectures, followed by a short online quiz. In class, students’ misconceptions were

addressed, the concepts from the video lectures were applied to problems, and students were

challenged to think beyond given examples. Students showed increased comprehension of the

material and appeared to improve their performance on summative assessments (exams).

Students reported feeling more comfortable with the subject of organic chemistry, and became

noticeably passionate about the subject. In addition to being an effective tool for teaching

Organic Chemistry I at a small college, flipping the organic chemistry classroom may help

students take more ownership of their learning.

Introduction

To college science majors, sophomore-level Organic Chemistry

I has a reputation as a scary, “weed-out” course, partially because

it is so content-laden and fast-paced in order to address a host of

learning goals. The challenges of effectively teaching this course

stems from the large amount of content needed to serve the

eclectic student population enrolled in the course: biology,

chemistry, and pre-professional majors. By the time students

begin their sophomore year of college, they are likely to be

comfortable with the lecture format of their courses, and feel they

can learn well by taking notes in class while the instructor

lectures to them. However, passive lecture, without any

activities, is largely ineffective with respect to comprehension

and retention (Halloun, 1985; Seymour and Hewitt, 1997).

Introducing the students to the material through interactive

lecturing or other active methods (e.g. problem-based learning,

peer-instruction, case-studies, debates, etc.) has been shown to

be much more effective in helping students learn (Crouch and

Mazur, 2001; Prince, 2004; Lasry et al., 2008).

One such active teaching method is flipping (or inverting) the

classroom. The flipped classroom is one that is primarily student-

centered (active), as opposed to instructor-centered (lecture).

Flipping the class removes content from the classroom and

places it on the student as homework. The means by which the

content is delivered outside of class can vary (i.e. tutorials,

readings, videos, vodcasts, lecture-captured videos, etc.). The

removal of content from the class period allows the instructor to

spend more time actively working with the students, and allows

the use of a variety of learning tools. The flipped classroom was

initially implemented and reported by economists (Lage et al.,

2000) aimed at reducing variability in teaching styles across the

classroom in order to increase student performance. Because

each instructor was able to implement various activities in order

to create an inclusive classroom, the method was successful.

Various other disciplines, including pharmacy (Pierce and Fox,

2012), statistics (Strayer, 2012), computer science (Foertsch et

al., 2002; Davies et al., 2013), and medicine (McLaughlin et al.,

2014) have reported success with implementing the flipped class.

In terms of pedagogy, the flipped classroom method

continues to garner a lot of attention. In chemistry, this approach

was introduced by two high school teachers, Jonathan Bergmann

and Aaron Sams (2012), and has become widely spread among

disciplines and curriculum levels. There is a small body of work

that discusses the merits of using the flipped method in chemistry

courses (Bergman and Sams, 2012; Arnaud, 2013, with the

majority of the cases involving general chemistry in high school.

Very little published evidence exists about the effectiveness of

the flipped classroom in higher education (Smith, 2013; Teo et

al., 2014). Fewer yet are examples of implementation of the flip

in sophomore-level organic chemistry (Bradley et al.; 2002,

Christiansen, 2014).

Given the limited number of reports of the effectiveness of

the flipped classroom when implemented with college

sophomores in Organic Chemistry I, this paper aims to fill some

of the informational gap. Reported here are the results of an

implementation of the flipped class in Organic Chemistry I,

including student perceptions, student performance (grades), and

student ownership of their own learning.

Page 1 of 11 Chemistry Education Research and Practice

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960 C

hem

istr

yE

duca

tion

Res

earc

han

dP

ract

ice

Acc

epte

dM

anus

crip

t

ARTICLE Journal Name

2 | J. Name., 2012, 00, 1-3 This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2012

Flipped Course Design

When considering the option to flip the organic chemistry

curriculum, several factors were at play. The biggest issue with

the original non-flipped lecture course was that there did not

seem to be enough time in the class period for both covering

content and getting sufficient practice on problems (i.e. naming,

mechanisms, and eventually syntheses). Because the course was

not taught solely by one instructor, and a common set of learning

objectives was used, the option to remove or revise content was

not feasible. In order to create more time during class to help

guide students through practice problems, the content needed to

be communicated in a different way. Therefore, flipping the class

by moving lecture material to videos as homework seemed like

a viable option to explore.

Course Format

The sophomore organic chemistry curriculum at York College (a

small college in Pennsylvania, United States) consists of a two-

course sequence: Organic I and Organic II. Both courses are

structured such that enrollment is capped at 24 students per

lecture with separate lab sections of 16 students. The lectures

meet 2 days a week for 75 minute sessions. Recitation or

discussion sections are not part of either course, and teaching

assistants are only present in the laboratory portion of the

courses. Students enrolled in the courses represent several

majors within the biological and physical sciences.

Although the curriculum follows a two-course sequence,

only the first course, Organic Chemistry I, was followed for this

study and will be commonly referred to as “the course” herein.

Additionally, Organic I is offered every semester at the college,

and information from each semester was collected, beginning in

Fall 2011. In the Fall 2011 semester, a standard sophomore-level

Organic Chemistry I lecture was taught as primarily lecture-

based (i.e. “non-flipped”), with some active learning (i.e. group

problem-solving and reporting) during class. In the Spring 2012

semester the same course was offered again as non-flipped, but

the student population was slightly different. The spring course

comprises those students who are off-sequence, or out of order.

Generally speaking, the students in the spring semesters are not

as strong, collectively, as the students in the fall semesters. In

Fall 2012, and every semester thereafter, the Organic I course

was taught using the flipped classroom approach. One important

note is that Organic I in the Fall 2013 semester was facilitated by

a different instructor while the regular instructor was on leave,

and the course did contain additional activities during class time.

This sample set may not be reliable as a result of this additional

variable, but data, nonetheless, were collected and are reported

within the flipped group.

Flipped Class Details

Lecture slides adapted from the publisher were used to instruct

both the flipped and non-flipped groups. All sections of the

Organic Chemistry I course had three in-class 75-minute exams

and a two-hour comprehensive final. For the non-flipped group,

the lectures were presented in-class, with periods of group work

interspersed between new concepts. For the flipped group, the

lectures were assigned as pre-recorded videos to view before

attending the class. Both groups were introduced to in-class

quizzes about 1 time per week, and homework (optional Fall

2011 and required Spring 2012 to present) was also assigned.

The flipped class had additional quizzes completed through the

course management system, Blackboard, due several hours

before class.

Video Lectures. The video lectures (“vodcasts”) were

recorded on a Mac laptop using the screen capture software,

ScreenFlow. The program captured all activity on the screen,

including a PowerPoint lecture slide background, a small picture

of the instructor’s face (captured while “lecturing”), and any

drawing or annotating done over the lecture slide. A small

external tablet and pen were used to draw on the screen with the

application Deskscribble. An external microphone captured the

sound at the same time the screen activity was recorded. The

videos were edited for correctness and content, exported as MP4

video files, and uploaded to Blackboard and YouTube. In total,

24 lectures were recorded, with changes, updates, and additions

to these videos implemented for each new semester. A list of

topics, aligned with the textbook, for each of the lectures is

provided in Appendix I.

Additionally, “review” videos were created before each

exam. In the review videos the instructor went through every

problem that had been posed in the lectures and worked them out

on-screen, as a separate exam review. Because the primary

lectures introduced several “try this at home” problems for the

students, and the answers were not readily available during class,

the review videos focused on solving all the extra problems, such

as nomenclature or mechanism examples. These review videos

were made available following the completion of all lectures

leading up to the exam (i.e. a few days before the exam). Not

including the review lectures, the average video length was ~20

minutes.

Warm-up Quizzes. After watching the assigned lecture as

homework, students attempted a five question quiz on

Blackboard (a “warm-up”). The quiz included a selection of

multiple choice, fill in the blank, and short answer questions.

Occasionally, the warm-up would also include a “bring to class”

question, which required the student to turn in a hand-drawn

answer to the problem. Every warm-up quiz included the same

“muddiest point” question:

After watching the recorded lecture for the appropriate

class period, please provide at least one question that

you have about the material. Alternatively, you can list

your "favorite" or most interesting part of the material.

This question can be answered below, OR turned in on

paper at the beginning of class (when it is due). The

warm-up will be considered incomplete (no credit) if

this question is incomplete.

The warm-ups were graded as completion with no make-ups.

These quizzes acted as formative assessments and were graded

as complete or incomplete. The results of these quizzes guided

the content for the beginning of the following class period, much

like a just-in-time teaching approach.

Page 2 of 11Chemistry Education Research and Practice

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960 C

hem

istr

yE

duca

tion

Res

earc

han

dP

ract

ice

Acc

epte

dM

anus

crip

t

Journal Name ARTICLE


Mini-lectures. The warm-up quizzes were used as a guide

for the beginning of the class period in which the material would

be discussed. At the start of each class period the instructor

addressed the “muddiest point” questions the students asked the

night before. Additionally, the lowest-scoring (sometimes all)

warm-up questions were reviewed, and the students worked in

groups to discuss the answers. The instructor also presented a

mini-lecture in which the main concepts from the lecture were

reviewed and re-introduced. This review and mini-lecture

generally lasted 10-20 minutes.

Attendance/Activities. Students earned participation points

by coming to class on time and actively participating in the

problem-solving activities for the day. Students were assigned

problems in groups, and individuals were asked to report answers

by writing them on the board, as well as explaining the answers

verbally to the class, using correct terminology. The instructor

facilitated the problem-solving sessions, conversing with each

group several times during each class period and answering

questions as they arose. The instructor made minor corrections

to answers on the board and answered any further questions on

the problems. The problem-solving activities generally took up

the bulk of the time, usually 45-65 minutes.

Entrance and Exit Surveys

An exit survey was given to students, in only the flipped classes,

at the close of the semester. After flipping the class for two

semesters, an additional entrance survey was given to the

students on the first day of class. In order to capture the largest

audience, surveys were given on paper at the end of a class period

while the instructor waited outside the classroom. Each student

was informed that participation in the survey(s) was completely

voluntary and anonymous and would not affect his or her grade.

The instructor did not view the responses to the surveys until

after grades for the semester were reported.

The exit survey was adapted from an existing survey

(Butzler, 2012) and asked approximately 25 questions pertaining

to study habits, interactions with the material outside of class,

effectiveness of the flipped classroom, and overall student

learning. The questions were scored on a scale of 1-5, with 1

being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree. In addition

to the scaled questions, the survey also included several open-

response questions. The most recent set of Entrance and Exit

survey questions (Spring 2014) can be found in Appendix II.

Results and Discussion

Grades

The “non-flipped group” contained three non-flipped Organic I

classes: Fall 2011(two sections) and Spring 2012 (one section).

The “flipped group” contained three flipped Organic I classes

(one section each): Fall 2012, Spring 2013, and Fall 2013. Both

of these non-flipped and flipped groups attempted in-class

exams, which were the majority of the overall course grade

(~40%). Although the same exact exams were not administered

every semester, the content and variety of questions stayed the

same. When comparing the non-flipped group and the flipped

group, the overall grade distribution appeared to change (Figure

1). The percentage of students earning a 3.5 (A-/B+) decreased

in the flipped group, but the percentage of students earning a 3.0

(B) nearly doubled. The percentage of students earning a 4.0 (A)

also increased in the flipped group. The grade of a “W” indicates

an official withdrawal from the course. Before the flip, six

students withdrew from the course (10%). After implementing

the flip, only three students withdrew from the course (4%),

while one earned a 0 (F). Of note, the only “0” grade in the

Sample of questions from exit survey Fall 2012

n=37

Spring 2013

n=22

Fall 2013

n=12

Spring 2014

n=16

I think that having lectures recorded benefitted me as a student. 4.30 3.59 3.73 4.19

During class exercises, my problem-solving skills were developed. 4.32 4.23 4.36 4.47

Listening to lectures outside of the classroom and problem-solving in class is effective. 4.41 3.86 4.00 4.31

Listening to lectures at home and problem-solving in class was more effective than if I

had listened to a lecture during class and did problems on my own at home.

4.33 3.55 3.73 4.25

Working on problems in class increased my problem-solving comfort level. 4.46 4.36 4.18 4.50

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1 0 W

Non-flipped Flipped

Figure 1. A comparison of the grade distribution, as a percentage of

students earning each grade, for the non-flipped group (three sections

n=59) and the flipped group (three sections, n=83).

Table 1. Averages of survey results for a sample of questions from the exit survey.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960 C

hem

istr

yE

duca

tion

Res

earc

han

dP

ract

ice

Acc

epte

dM

anus

crip

t



flipped group was a student that had to remain in the class to

maintain full-time status, but stopped attending class a little after

mid-semester.

Generally speaking, the grade distribution may indicate that

students in the flipped Organic I classroom tend to stick around

for the entire semester and not withdraw from the course. For

example, if one assumes that these students are weaker in terms

of academic abilities, and these students are increasingly sticking

with the course until the end, then the overall course grade

average might be lowered. If weaker students remain, they are

not “weeded out”, but instead are supported until the end. This,

arguably, is one of the main goals of using the flipped classroom

as a pedagogy—to help those students who might otherwise drop

the course. The grade distribution reported in Figure 1 can be

interpreted to show that students were not negatively affected by

the flip. The very remarkable students still did very well, while

weaker students were more able to successfully complete the

course. The increased possibility of weaker students passing the

course may help paint the dreaded Organic Chemistry class in a

better, more achievable, light. Perhaps the stigma about the

course could be lessened by explaining to students that with the

flip, success is certainly possible.

In an effort to check that the students in the flipped class were

not at a disadvantage compared to those in other concurrent

sections that were not flipped, an analysis of student performance

at the end of the full organic sequence (after the Organic II

course) was conducted, using the summative ACS final exam.

Students taking the ACS exam could have experienced varying

levels of the flipped class, from zero to two semesters of

exposure. Students participated for one semester of the flip

(either Organic I or Organic II), two semesters (both Organic I

and Organic II), or zero semesters (taking Organic I and Organic

II with another instructor). The average exam scores were nearly

identical for those students in the flipped class for 1 semester, 2

semesters, or 0 semesters, and were on par with previous

semesters (data not shown).

Surveys

Highlighted partial exit survey results are summarized in Table

1. The scale for these questions is 1-5, with 1 being “strongly

disagree” and 5 being “strongly agree”. All Entrance and Exit

survey response means are reported in Table A1 and A2

(Appendix II). Overall, the sample survey responses in Table 1

are positive. For the questions highlighted, all the response

averages are on the “agree” end of the spectrum and above a 3.0

(which is neutral). Student responses can be summarized by one

particular exit survey comment:

“I LOVE the course format. I must say that it took some

time getting used to not having lecture in the classroom,

but it grows on you…By coming to class already with

material in the back of your head, it definitely makes for

a more productive class and any students that are

having problems, it seems to help them out as well.”

Towards the end of the semester, students were able to establish

a routine. They knew what they needed to do each night to

prepare for class, and many were comforted by knowing any

questions they had would be answered during the mini-lecture in

class. The students in the flipped class knew they could study for

exams by reviewing the lectures, and they knew that the

problems solved in class were very similar to those they would

encounter on exams. Students really embraced the method in the

end because they could see how it was benefitting them—

Spring

2013

Entrance

(n=24)

Spring

2013

Exit

(n=22)

p

Fall

2013

Entrance

(n=10)

Fall

2013

Exit

(n=12)

p

Spring

2014

Entrance

(n=21)

Spring

2014

Exit

(n=16)

p

I feel confident in

my organic chemistry problem-

solving skills.

2.33a

(1.14)b

3.50a

(0.86) 0.00169 3.44 (1.01)

3.50

(0.50) 0.760 2.71a (1.11)

3.69a

(0.70) 0.00433

I have a good

understanding of

organic chemistry, and feel comfortable

explaining concepts

to others.

1.71 (0.91) 2.38

(1.32) 0.0507 2.50a (0.85)

3.58a

(0.64) 0.00320 2.19a (1.17)

3.63a

(0.81) < 0.001

I feel autonomous in

my learning. (That is, I am in control of

what I learn or don’t

learn)

4.48 (0.68) 4.44

(0.81) 0.876

Table 2. Entrance and exit surveys: Response means reported for Organic Chemistry I in each semester indicated.

aValues are statistically different from entrance to exit (p < 0.05). bValues in parentheses denote one standard deviation.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960 C

hem

istr

yE

duca

tion

Res

earc

han

dP

ract

ice

Acc

epte

dM

anus

crip

t



something that can be difficult to comprehend at the start of the

semester when the method is completely new.

Though the method was successful overall, in terms of

student grades trending upwards and student perceptions (exit

survey) being positive (high responses toward the “agree” end of

the scale), most students opposed the format in the beginning of

the semester. When asked the open-ended question, “What do

you think of the idea of the "inverted" method of teaching this

course?” on the entrance survey (when given), student responses

were along the lines of:

“I think it may turn out well in the end, but so far it has

been tough getting used to.”

“Right now I think it is tricky and hard, but it has only

been 2 lectures.”

Responses to this question have increasingly improved in

attitude as the course has been taught in the flipped format. Some

of the students in the Spring 2014 semester responded to the

same question with:

“Awesome idea, I expect to do well in this course

because of this method.”

“I think it will be helpful since things often make sense

in lecture but questions arise when trying to apply

concepts.”

“I think it will help to just solve problems [in class] and

ask questions rather than lecture.”

The continued support and encouragement from the instructor,

as well as an almost contagious positive attitude by the instructor

on the first day of class during the “buy-in” period may be aiding

the increasingly positive outlook by the students.

Although not considered at the onset of utilizing the flipped

class method for this organic chemistry course, an additional

research question was identified after one year of implementing

the flip: “Do students take more ownership of their learning

while in the flipped classroom?” By the time students are

sophomores they have generally become used to the passive

lecture format, and their learning is no longer a self-sufficient

journey as a result of the lecture “crutch”. It is important that

students, as they grow and mature and become self-sufficient

adults in their respective careers, learn to take ownership of their

learning. Coming to class and writing down exactly what the

instructor writes on the board is, for the most part, easy; taking

that material and using it to solve problems is not. At the

beginning and end of three semesters (Spring and Fall 2013, and

Spring 2014) students in the Organic Chemistry I course that

semester were surveyed. Comparative data between the start of

the semester (Entrance) and the end of the semester (Exit) are

available for three questions regarding student learning, asked

on both surveys.

For the first two questions, the responses increased towards

“strongly agree” at the end of the semester. This increase

indicates that students were, in fact, becoming more comfortable

with the material as the semester came to a close. This result is

not surprising given the fact that the entrance survey is generally

distributed on the first day or two of class when the students

have almost no organic chemistry background. Although not

statistically significant, the last question in Table 2 was asked in

only one semester so far, and the result was not one that was

anticipated. Students at the start of the semester reported that

they were more in control of their own learning (response of

4.48) than at the end of the semester (4.44). This unexpected

result could be explained by both the small sample size, and the

fact that only 16 of the original 21 students completed the exit

survey (several were absent that day). Additionally, since this

was the first time that question was asked on the survey, it will

be important to continue to ask that same question and follow-

up with the original theory: students will feel more in control of

their success in the classroom (learning) as the semester

progresses in a flipped class.

Instructor’s Observations

From a more qualitative perspective, the instructor’s

observations can be used to report on the effectiveness of the

practice of flipping the classroom. One such observation was

during the first flipped semester (Fall 2012), when the instructor

witnessed an argument about mechanistic arrows. The class was

working on a problem that involved synthesizing information

based on a concept to which the students had just been

introduced. They recently learned how to draw curved

mechanistic arrows, and were facing a problem where the arrows

were missing from a mechanism, but the reactants and products

were drawn. The particular problem at hand involved a carbonyl

reaction, and since this chemistry is discussed in the second

semester portion of the course, the students were truly

synthesizing their own answers. Two students in a group of four

felt very strongly that they had the correct arrows drawn for the

given set of products, while the other two students in the group

felt very strongly that THEY had the correct answer. The group

called in the instructor to settle the dispute, and after both sides

giving testimony, the correct answer was revealed by the

instructor. The students were extremely passionate and lively in

their discussion—something that was not observed in the more

lecture-based course.

For this course, each student was expected to report (written

or oral) the answers to problems regularly throughout the

semester. One natural outcome of the flipped class is that

students become increasingly comfortable with sharing answers

and discussing them as a large group. This outcome was more

visible compared to the lecture-based classroom, mostly because

the non-flipped class did not allow enough time to have rich

discussions and debates about several topics during each class

period.

The format of the flipped class allowed for the instructor to

challenge the students to deeper learning, critical thinking, and

problem solving during the reclaimed class time where the

instructor was face-to-face with the students. For this study, the

method of problem-solving did not differ much in the flipped

class from the non-flipped class; however, the amount of time

available to cover additional problems and discuss them

thoroughly increased with the flip. This extra time that the

instructor spent with the students is crucial, as the instructor

interacted with every single student during every single class

period—something unheard of in the lecture format (taught by


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960 C

hem

istr

yE

duca

tion

Res

earc

han

dP

ract

ice

Acc

epte

dM

anus

crip

t



the same instructor). Interestingly, increased success of weaker

students could be attributed to the instructor’s ability to

individualize the course: chat with each student, hold each of

them accountable for preparing for class, and inquire about

where they might have additional problems or questions.

Potential Problems

One problem that persisted with the course format is the

inability of students to ask questions immediately as they see and

hear content for the first time. Students were instructed to take

notes, write down questions, and save questions for in-class

discussions. Additionally, questions could be submitted by email

or by answering the warm-up quiz question (“muddiest point”).

An online forum is one way to encourage student questions,

although many students are too nervous to ask questions in a

public setting (and one that can be tracked with their name). One

way to circumvent the inability to ask immediate questions is to

offer students instant feedback in the form of a text message.

This option was available to the Spring 2014 class; surprisingly

no students utilized it.

An additional problem with the flipped format is the inability

of the instructor to know if each student viewed each lecture in

its entirety. For the flipped classroom to work smoothly, each

student must come to class prepared. Whether the student

watched the lecture video, read the book, or watched YouTube

videos on the topic, it does not particularly matter, as long as he

or she had first exposure to the content before arriving to class.

Without a way to check for viewing of the lecture videos,

students were not held accountable for their preparation, aside

from the warm-up quiz (completion) and interactions with the

instructor during the allotted participation time. In most cases

students who failed to prepare for class had a legitimate reason

and did not form a habit of avoiding the lecture videos. Students

felt guilty when they could not participate and help within their

groups. To address this issue in the future, a set of notes could

be required (and graded) to ensure first exposure to content

outside of class.

Conclusions

As with any new technique or pedagogical tool, there is no one

solution to every problem, and the decision to flip a class,

especially a gateway course to other required courses, is not one

to take lightly. The format of this course was changed

dramatically when all of the content was moved from during

class time to outside of class as homework. It is important to

recognize that this technique will not be useful for every organic

chemistry course, instructor, or class of students, but in this case,

the student performances and responses were positive.

One reason for the success of the flip in this particular setting

could be that the student buy-in was successful at the start of the

semester. The instructor made a pointed effort to be very positive

about the format, stressing to the students the reasons why it

would be beneficial to them. Some of those beneficial attributes

of the course that were communicated to the students include:

the ability to pause, rewind, and re-watch the lecture videos—

something that is not possible with in-class “live” lectures;

lectures available for review for the entire semester; and recorded

review lectures as an option to summarize and practice the

material before exams. Another important point made to the

students was that they could be completely in control of their

own learning. They could take advantage of all the resources

available to them (i.e. re-watch lectures, work many problems in

class, practice at home after already practicing in class, etc.) and

in the end, should feel satisfied with a job well-done. The initial

semester the flip was introduced, the students were told that it

was a new technique and the instructor would re-visit the

technique as the semester progressed, in case the whole thing was

a flop. Mid-semester evaluations were collected and the response

was >90% positive from the group, so the format continued.

Once that semester was complete, the instructor was forthcoming

with the improvement in student grades from non-flipped to

flipped. If students thought they were more likely to earn an A,

not that it was easier to earn an A, they were on board. The grade

improvement results alone were enough to help get subsequent

sections of the course on board with the method.

In summary, the flipped classroom appears to be an effective

pedagogical approach to teaching organic chemistry in a small

college setting. Student performance (as measured by grades)

appeared to be the same or improved with the flipped format, and

student attitudes toward the flipped class were positive, with 70-

90% of each class liking the format. Students’ comfort level in

solving problems increased over the course of a flipped semester

and their confidence in the material improved. Students were

exposed to difficult content outside of class, at home, where they

could pause and re-watch parts of the lecture, take notes at their

own pace, and watch review lectures before exams. Class time,

then, was used for answering questions and applying the content,

which in a more lecture-based classroom is usually reserved for

homework and office hours. With the flipped method students

can take more responsibility for their learning in an active way

and be more aware of what they are capable of learning.

Notes and references aDepartment of Physical Sciences, York College of Pennsylvania,

[email protected]

Arnaud, C.H., (2013), Flipping Chemistry Classrooms, Chem.

Eng. News, 91, 41–43.

Bergman, J., and Sams, A., (2012), Flip Your Classroom: Reach

Every Student in Every Class Every Day, Washington, DC:

International Society for Technology in Education.

Bradley, A.Z., Ulrich, S.M., Jones Jr., M., and Jones, S.M., (2002),

Teaching the Sophomore Organic Course without a Lecture.

Are You Crazy? J. Chem. Educ., 79, 514–519, DOI:

10.1021/ed079p514.

Butzler, K., (2012), Survey questions for the inverted class,

Retrieved from http://kellybutzler.wikispaces.com/ (accessed

May 29, 2012).

Christiansen, M.A., (2014), Inverted Teaching: Applying a New

Pedagogy to a University Organic Chemistry Class. J. Chem.

Educ., 91, 1845-1850, DOE: 10.1021/ed400530z.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960 C

hem

istr

yE

duca

tion

Res

earc

han

dP

ract

ice

Acc

epte

dM

anus

crip

t



Crouch, C., and Mazur, E., (2001), Peer Instruction: Ten years of

experience and results, Am. J. Phys., 69, 970–977, DOI:

10.1119/1.1374249.

Davies, R.S., Dean, D.L., and Ball, N., (2013), Flipping the

classroom and instructional technology integration in a

college-level information systems spreadsheet course, Educ.

Technol. Res. Dev., 61, 536–580, DOI: 10.1007/s11423-013-

9305-6.

Foertsch, J., Moses, G., Strikwerda, J., and Litzkow, M., (2002),

Reversing the Lecture/Homework Paradigm Using eTEACH

Web-based Streaming Video Software, J. Eng. Educ., 267–

274, DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2002.tb00703.x.

Halloun, I.A., (1985), The initial knowledge state of college

physics students, Am. J. Phys., 53, 1043-1048, DOI:

10.1119/1.14030.

Lage, M.J., Platt, G.J., and Treglia, M., (2000), Inverting the

Classroom: A Gateway to Creating an Inclusive Learning

Environment, J. Econ. Educ., 30–43, DOI: 10.2307/1183338.

Lasry, N., Mazur, E., and Watkins, J., (2008), Peer instruction:

From Harvard to the two-year college, Am. J. Phys., 76, 1066-

1069, DOI: 10.1119/1.2978182.

McLaughlin, J.E., Roth, M.T., Glatt, D.M., Gharkholonarehe, N.,

Davidson, C.A., Griffin, L.M., Esserman, D.A., and Mumper,

R.J., (2014), The Flipped Classroom: A Course Redesign to

Foster Learning and Engagement in a Health Professions

School, Acad. Med., 89, 236–243, DOI:

10.1097/ACM.0000000000000086.

Pierce, R., and Fox, J., (2012), Vodcasts and Active-Learning

Exercises in a “Flipped Classroom” Model of a Renal

Pharmacotherapy Module, Am. J. Pharm. Educ., 76(10),

Article 196, 1-5, DOI: 10.5688/ajpe7610196.

Prince, M., (2004), Does Active Learning Work? A Review of the

Research, J. Eng. Educ., 93, 223–231, DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-

9830.2004.tb00809.x.

Seymour, E., and Hewitt, N.M., (1997), Talking About Leaving:

Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences, Boulder, CO:

Westview Press.

Smith, J.D., (2013), Student attitudes toward flipping the general

chemistry classroom, Chem. Educ. Res. Pr., 14, 607-614, DOI:

10.1039/c3rp00083d.

Strayer, J.F., (2012), How learning in an inverted classroom

influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation, Learn.

Environ. Res., 15, 171–193, DOI: 10.1007/s10984-012-9108-

4.

Teo, T.W, Tan, K.C.D., Yan, Y.K., Teo, Y.C., and Yeo, L.W.,

(2014), How flip teaching supports undergraduate chemistry

laboratory learning, Chem. Educ. Res. Pr., 15, 550-567, DOI:

10.1039/C4RP00003J.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960 C

hem

istr

yE

duca

tion

Res

earc

han

dP

ract

ice

Acc

epte

dM

anus

crip

t

Appendix I: Topics per video (24) for the Organic Chemistry I course

1. Lecture_01_Ch1: Remembering General Chemistry: Electronic structure and bonding (30 min)

2. Lecture_02_Ch2: Acids and Bases: Central to understanding organic chemistry (19 min)

3. Lecture_03_Ch2: Chapter 2, continued; Resonance revisited (17 min)

4. Lecture_04_Ch3: An Introduction to Organic Compounds (alkane nomenclature) (28 min)

5. Lecture_05_Ch3: Newman projections (25 min)

6. Lecture_06_Ch3: Cyclohexane and chair conformations (30 min)

7. Lecture_07_Ch14: Infrared Spectroscopy (23 min)

8. Lecture_08_Ch14: IR continued: annotating spectra; determining unknowns (11 min)

9. Lecture_09_Ch14: Mass Spectrometry (10 min)

10. Lecture_10_Ch4: Isomers: The arrangement of Atoms in space (28 min)

11. Lecture_11_Ch4: Chapter 4, continued (18 min)

12. Lecture_12_Ch5: Alkenes: Structure, Nomenclature (17 min)

13. Lecture_13_Ch5: Alkenes: Introduction to Reactivity, thermodynamics and kinetics (19 min)

14. Lecture_14_Ch6: Reactions of Alkenes; Mechanisms (25 min)

15. Lecture_15_Ch6: Stereochemistry of Addition reactions (20 min)

16. Lecture_16_Ch8: Delocalized electrons and their effect on stability (17 min)

17. Lecture_17_Ch8: Diels Alder reactions (25 min)

18. Lecture_18_Ch8: Thermodynamic and Kinetic products (reactions of dienes) (17 min)

19. Lecture_19_Ch7: The reactions of alkynes (18 min)

20. Lecture_20_Ch7: Reactions of alkynes, continued; Synthesis (19 min)

21. Lecture_21_Ch9: Substitution reactions (SN2) (23 min)

22. Lecture_22_Ch9: Substitution reactions (SN1); Comparing SN1 and SN2; Synthesis (15 min)

23. Lecture_23_Ch10: Elimination reactions of alkyl halides (18 min)

24. Lecture_24_Ch10: Competition between substitution and elimination; Synthesis (22 min)

Appendix II: Entrance and Exit Surveys

Part 1. Survey Questions

Entrance Survey Questions, Spring 2014

On a scale of 1-5, (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree) please answer the following:

1. I have had recorded lectures available to me in courses prior to this one.

2. I think that having lectures recorded will benefit me as a student.

3. I feel confident in my organic chemistry problem-solving skills.

4. I feel autonomous in my learning. (That is, I am in control of what I learn or don’t learn)

5. I am nervous about the format of this course because I have never done anything like this before.

6. I think that problem-solving in class will help me practice problem-solving outside of class and on

exams, homework assignments, and quizzes.

7. I have a good understanding of organic chemistry, and feel comfortable explaining concepts to others.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

Che

mis

try

Edu

catio

nR

esea

rch

and

Pra

ctic

eA

ccep

ted

Man

uscr

ipt

Open-ended questions:

What do you think of the idea of the "inverted" method of teaching this course?

What in-the-class methods are usually helpful for you in learning chemistry?

What out-of-the-class methods are usually helpful for you in learning chemistry?

What are your current study habits with respect to chemistry or science courses?

Exit Survey Questions, Spring 2014

On a scale of 1-5, (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree) please answer the following:

1. I interacted with the instructor at least 4 times during the traditional class meeting.

2. I interacted with the instructor at least 1 hour per week outside of the traditional class meeting.

3. I have had recorded lectures available to me in courses prior to this one.

4. I think that having lectures recorded benefitted me as a student.

5. When I watched the recorded lectures I watched and listened.

6. When I watched the recorded lectures I took some notes.

7. When I watched the recorded lectures I wrote down questions.

8. When I watched the recorded lectures I paused and rewound the video.

9. During class exercises, my problem-solving skills were developed.

10. I feel autonomous in my learning. (That is, I am in control of what I learn or don’t learn)

11. When I left the class, I felt that I could do problems on my own.

12. When I left the class I attempted to do problems outside of class.

13. Working on problems in class increased my problem-solving comfort level.

14. Listening to lectures outside of the classroom and problem-solving in class is effective.

15. I feel confident in my organic chemistry problem-solving skills.

16. I think that problem-solving in class has helped me practice problem-solving outside of class and on

exams, homework assignments, and quizzes.

17. Listening to lectures at home and problem-solving in class was more effective than if I had listened to

a lecture during class and did problems on my own at home.

18. I would take another class if it was "inverted".

19. The warm-up exercises and discussion helped me focus on the key concepts within each chapter of the

text.

20. I have a good understanding of organic chemistry, and feel comfortable explaining concepts to others.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

Che

mis

try

Edu

catio

nR

esea

rch

and

Pra

ctic

eA

ccep

ted

Man

uscr

ipt

21. I am still nervous about the format of this course, even at the end of the semester.

22. How often did you watch the pre-recorded lectures? (can circle more than one)

never once or twice per semester when I was absent before tests or quizzes

once per month once or twice per week once per day

Open-ended questions:

What did you think of the "inverted" method of teaching this course? Did your opinion change as the

semester progressed?

What in-the-class methods did you find especially helpful in this course?

What out-of-the-class methods did you find especially helpful in this course?

How did your study habits change in the inverted classroom structure, over the course of the semester, if

at all?

Part 2. Survey response data

Table A1. Mean responses for all entrance survey questions per semester (scale of 1-5).

Entrance Survey

questions Spring 2013 n = 24 Fall 2013 n = 10 Spring 2014 n = 21

Mean Standard

Deviation Mean

Standard

Deviation Mean

Standard

Deviation

Q1 1.96 1.49 2.00 1.63 2.71 1.55

Q2 3.92 1.06 4.30 0.82 4.30 0.86

Q3 2.52 1.08 3.40 0.97 2.76 1.04

Q4a 4.48 0.68

Q5 3.00 1.10 2.44 1.24 2.71 1.38

Q6 4.29 0.69 4.40 0.70 4.48 0.60

Q7 1.71 0.91 2.50 0.85 2.19 1.17 aQuestion 4 was added in Spring 2014 only.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

Che

mis

try

Edu

catio

nR

esea

rch

and

Pra

ctic

eA

ccep

ted

Man

uscr

ipt

Table A2. Mean responses for all exit survey questions per semester (scale of 1-5).

Entrance Survey

questions Fall 2012 n = 37 Spring 2013 n = 22 Fall 2013 n = 12 Spring 2014 n = 16

Mean Standard

Deviation

Mean Standard

Deviation

Mean Standard

Deviation

Mean Standard

Deviation

Q1 4.08 1.01 3.95 1.17 4.50 0.52 4.38 0.81

Q2 2.22 1.27 1.73 0.88 1.50 0.52 2.69 1.20

Q3 1.59 1.28 2.32 1.78 1.67 1.37 1.69 1.49

Q4 4.30 1.10 3.59 1.40 3.58 1.24 4.19 0.98

Q5 4.41 0.80 4.23 1.15 4.25 0.97 4.19 0.83

Q6 4.46 0.84 4.27 1.08 3.50 1.31 4.50 0.73

Q7 2.78 1.23 3.27 1.39 2.75 1.14 3.00 1.21

Q8 4.57 0.69 4.18 1.14 4.50 0.67 4.69 0.70

Q9 4.32 0.88 4.23 0.87 4.33 0.89 4.47 0.64

Q10a 4.44 0.81

Q11 4.00 0.94 3.86 1.13 3.75 1.06 3.88 0.81

Q12 4.00 1.05 4.00 0.87 3.42 1.00 4.19 0.98

Q13 4.46 0.84 4.36 0.73 4.08 0.79 4.50 0.63

Q14 4.41 0.72 3.86 1.17 3.75 1.22 4.31 1.01

Q15 3.89 0.97 3.50 0.86 3.50 0.52 3.69 0.70

Q16b 4.50 0.63

Q17 4.33 1.01 3.59 1.53 3.50 1.17 4.25 1.13

Q18 4.00 1.18 3.55 1.44 3.83 0.94 4.19 1.05

Q19 3.59 1.07 3.86 0.99 3.75 0.87 4.06 1.12

Q20 3.92 1.12 3.50 1.10 3.58 0.67 3.63 0.81

Q21 1.95 1.31 2.38 1.32 2.67 1.15 2.56 1.31 aQuestion 10 was added in Spring 2014. bQuestion 16 in 2012 and 2013 read: “I changed my study habits after the

first exam”. The question 16 reported on page S2 replaced the previous statement in Spring 2014. Responses to the

previous version of question 16 are not included.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

Che

mis

try

Edu

catio

nR

esea

rch

and

Pra

ctic

eA

ccep

ted

Man

uscr

ipt

Documents

Chemistry Eduction a eachRser and Practice